Cert. Granted in Dormant Commerce Clause, Taxpayer Standing Case

The Supreme Court has agreed to review a Sixth Circuit ruling that Ohio’s investment tax credit impermissibly discriminates in favor of in-state investment and against out-of-state investment in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause.

Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler, Inc., 386 F.3d 738 (6^th Cir. 2004), cert. granted 2005 WL 1452394, 73 USLW 3751 (U.S. Sept. 27, 2005)

The Court may not reach the merits, because it added to the grant of certiorari: “whether respondents have standing to challenge Ohio’s investment tax credit.”  The respondents are state taxpayers.  Standing was not raised in DaimlerChrysler’s petition and was not address in either the district court or court of appeals decisions, neither of which contains any discussion of the plaintiffs’ interest.  The Court may be sending a signal for lower courts to crack down on taxpayer standing cases other than those based on the Establishment Clause or those alleging the “’direct dollars-and-cents injury’ that our strict taxpayer-standing doctrine requires.”  Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 124 S.Ct. 2301, 2312 n.8 (2004) (quoting Doremus v. Board of Ed. of Hawthorne, 342 U.S. 429, 434 (1952)).